TikTok Ban is Patriot Act 2.0

867 Views | 10 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by Redbrickbear
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree. Be concerned about this legislation.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Printed out the bill, will comment after I have a chance to read and digest.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Man the list of people supporting this already gave me against it
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It goes way too far. I think TikTok is bad and deserves to be banned- both because it seems to be a Chinese spybot/data collection tool and is harmful to teens (like all social media) but this is way, way too much,.

Side question- the tweet says "ring light" is that just another term for Ring (nest, etc.) doorbell? Or is a Ring Light something else? I have never heard it called that I have heard it called Ring/Nest/Arlo/Eufy camera or doorbell but never a light.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's pretty shameful the clowns in DC want to mask their authoritarian compulsions in the "ban Tik-Tok" bill. Just do a clean bill to ban Tik-Tok. How hard is that?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

It's pretty shameful the clowns in DC want to mask their authoritarian compulsions in the "ban Tik-Tok" bill. Just do a clean bill to ban Tik-Tok. How hard is that?
It's painfully obvious to me that they want to exert more control over the population because they're answering to financial interests instead of the people.

They see how China does it and they want the same thing.

Lindsay Graham is a full blown swamp creature and he acts like he doesn't have a clue that this bill is a control/spy tool.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

It's pretty shameful the clowns in DC want to mask their authoritarian compulsions in the "ban Tik-Tok" bill. Just do a clean bill to ban Tik-Tok. How hard is that?
But when is the last time the government (really any level) had a bill that addresses only one subject at a time and not had a bunch of riders attached to it?
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

BearFan33 said:

It's pretty shameful the clowns in DC want to mask their authoritarian compulsions in the "ban Tik-Tok" bill. Just do a clean bill to ban Tik-Tok. How hard is that?
But when is the last time the government (really any level) had a bill that addresses only one subject at a time and not had a bunch of riders attached to it?
I'm not sure. It's been too long.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is a summary of the bill. Have any of you read its (I haven't)? All we have is Watters' characterization of the bill.

The RESTRICT Act is described as "a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans." It grants the Secretary of Commerce the authority to review transactions by certain foreign entities who offer "information and communications technologies products or services" (ICTS), in order to identify, investigate, and mitigate "undue and unacceptable" risks to the national security of the United States or its citizens. This includes but is not limited to:
  • Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
  • "Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
  • Interference and manipulation of federal elections
  • Undermining the democratic process to "steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States".
The Act applies to ICTS entities that are held in whole or in part by, or otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of a country or government that is designated under the Act as a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and has more than one million active users or units sold in the United States. The initial text of the Act classifies China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Iran, Russia, and the Nicols Maduro regime of Venezuela as foreign adversaries.
It would be unlawful for any person to violate any order or mitigation measure issued under the RESTRICT Act, with civil penalties of up to $250,000 or "twice the value of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed", whichever is greater.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act#cite_note-:2-4][[/url]
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.